Re: [Gen-art] Gem-Art review for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-14

"Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7817A1A9100; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:45:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QXFVpY3fgs5X; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:45:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B985B1A90FE; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:45:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3338; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452026730; x=1453236330; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=T8WxoLUpDRid2FOR8nWOvgrH3ewWb2BT6UD6ZWh3X98=; b=RSVoLYq4GqAnfUB64j2GLdWr5lJ3KSMML3cDdNLAV9e1EHO1GO8foRus 55Nk9RRykAVf8ogu0BzcKVaC4Yaj7qPu1BDwEVTK6aswOCtC1+YaTpB2/ xLyIs8++Wt8XP4lSwRUusij62d1S0E89D8AzvfeNong0Wrozs6dbCDxpF g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DNAgAlK4xW/5hdJa1egzpSbQaIU7NpD?= =?us-ascii?q?oFkhg8CgR84FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBAwF5BQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBQ6IGQjCPgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ8JhlYBgg4IgmiIIYEbAQSHW4cSiBsBgnKBZ?= =?us-ascii?q?Yh7gVyNIYpOg3IBIAFDhApyhFmBCAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,526,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="60878575"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2016 20:45:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u05KjHKu029963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 20:45:17 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:45:16 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:45:16 -0600
From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gem-Art review for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-14
Thread-Index: AQHRMsLYrQtNSpsnWUeyZsZLFZDKgZ7OMT6AgAAI5gCAH7jfAA==
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 20:45:16 +0000
Message-ID: <65904AFD-9028-4231-9170-6B3724D5F602@cisco.com>
References: <800EE981-F2C3-4540-8653-8AEC63625E17@cisco.com> <5671879B.6090007@isode.com> <F7561C2E-AB91-42FD-AA48-8CCD9AAD2606@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F7561C2E-AB91-42FD-AA48-8CCD9AAD2606@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.118.79]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_86F746CA-CB79-43B5-9BEC-C1D4F53AC733"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KZj19p5lm8g8FC-bfEz7ar3_pfQ>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gem-Art review for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-14
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:45:32 -0000

Confirming that rev -15 addresses my Gen-ART review comments...

- Ralph

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:19 AM 12/16/15, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:47 AM 12/16/15, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ralph,
>> Thank you for your review. Sorry I missed it earlier.
> 
> You're welcome.  Looks like we have agreement on my editorial comments and suggestions.  Will the edits you mention below appear in rev -15?
> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> 
>> On 09/12/2015 20:47, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>> 
>>> Nicely written, very clear document.
>> Thank you.
>>> idnits reports some lines too long and an unused reference.
>> I fixed the reference in my copy. I hope RFC Editor can help with lines which are too long.
>>> In the third paragraph of the Introduction, I suggest removing the parentheses and editing the second sentence for clarity; specifically, what is "SCRAM data"?
>> I meant SCRAM requests and responses.
>>> You could probably omit the parentheses in the second paragraph of Setion 3, as well, I'm likely just arguing style.
>> Barry picked on this as well, so this was rewritten for clarity.
>>> The last sentence of the last paragraph of sectino 3 was unclear to me: which messages are referred to?
>> Message is the same as 'decoded "data" attribute' in the previous sentence. I clarified that.
>>> I think, in the phrase "fail the authentication" in the fifth paragraph of section 8, you are using "fail" as a transitive verb, as in "the client considers the authentication of the message to have failed"
>> ... and does whatever is appropriate in this case. Which might be closing the connection, retrying or trying another (non SCRAM) mechanism.
>>> .  If I have that write, I suggest rewriting the containing sentence to improve the clarity.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Alexey
>> 
>> 
>